
Glass. 
Book. 



To^ 



SPEECH 



MRrTIJRNEY,OF TENNESSEE, 



ON 



THE COMPROMISE BILL. 



D£U7KHK]D 



IW SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES, WEDNESDAY, JUNE 5, 1860 



WASHINGTON: 

rRINTCP AT THE CONGRESSIONAL nLOBC OrfWC. 

1350, 






i <j- '.^ -^J <.J 



THE COMIMIOMISE BILL 



The Senate having resumed the consideration of 
the bill to admit California as a State into the 
Union, to establish Territorial Governments for 
Utah and New Mexico, and making proposals to 
Texas for the establishment of her western and 
noihern boundaries — 

. Mr. TURNKY said: Mr. President, my object 
is not so much to discuss the particular merits of 
the amenilments as it is to notice an article relating 
to myself, and others who act with me, which ap- 
peared in the "Union" of yesterday. I, with 
others, am arrai<;ned before the country as being 
opposed to this bill, upon the simple ground of the 
particular provision which it is proposed by the 
Senator from Mississippi to amend. But 1 will 
read an extract of the article. It says: 

" (t is well know lh:it the Clayton compromise receiv<;(1 
the voti-s of the strict State-rights men from th« South in the 
Senati; and in the H JU-se of Representatives ; that the mass 
of southern politician?, without distinction of party, votpd 
against Mr. Stephens's motion to lay it on the table ; that 
in tlie House of RefTresentalives but eight southern men 
sustained that m'ltion— all of them Whig3 — and that the 
South fully and entirely sustained the compromise, and de- 
nounced those wiio aided the North in defeating it as traitors 
to her cause. Tnat compromise was passed to its third 
reading in the Senate of the United States by the following 
vote. We ask particular attention to the names record.^d : 

"The yeas Were : Messrs. Atchison, Atlierton, Benton, 
Berrien, Borland, Breese, Bright, Butler, Calhoun, Clayton, 
Davis of Mississippi, Dickinson, Douglas, Downs, Foote, 
Hannegan, Houston, Hunter, Johnson of .Maryland, Johnson 
of Louisiana, Johnson of Georgia, Kijig, Lewis, Mansnin, 
Mason, Phelps, Rusk, Sebastian, .Spruance, Sturgeon, Tur- 
ney, VVescott, and Yulee. 

" Among the nays wc see the names of Messrs. Baldwin, 
Corwin, Davis of Massachusetts, Diyton, l)i.\. Hale, and 
Niles, the Van Buren Free-Soiler. These men are con- 
aistent. How cornea it, then, that Messrs. Borland, Butler, 
Davis of Mississippi, Hunter, Mason, Tarney, and Yulee, 
vote with them now ? But we anticipate, and therefore ask 
two other questions. They are — 

"1. What propositions relative to slavery were these 
■gentlemen voting for in 1&48.' and 

"2. What proposition relative to slavery is now pending 
before the National Legislature .' 

" We will answer these questions by stating the provis- 
ions touching slavery in the new territories, embodied in the 
Clayton compromise; and then, by stating the provisions 
touching the same subject, embodied in the plan of .adjust- 
ment now before Congress. 

" Looking to the Clayton compromise, which passed 
through the Senate by the vote we have given above, we 
find the following provision relative to the territorial govern- 
ments therein established, to wit, that liie legislative power 
of the said territories — 

'•' Shall have power to pass any law lor the administra- 
' tion of justice in said territory which shall not he rcpngnant 
' to this act, or inconsistent with the laws and Constitution 
'of tlie United J^tates. But no law shall be passed respcct- 
' ing an establishment of religion, or rdjerlins^ davcnt, or 
'interfering with thi' primary dispo>al of the soil ; aii<l no 
' taxsh.all be imposed upon the property of the United States; 
' nor shall 'he land-< or other property of non-residents be 



' taxed liicher than the lands or other property of resi- 
'dents. All the laws shall be submitted to the Congress 
'of the United Slates,and, if disapprovtd, shall be null and 
' void.' 

" Such is the Clayton compromise, a« far as the slavery 
quesfiim is concerned, and for which the gentlemen w hose 
names we have jiven, recorded their vote.-, about 8 o'cIikK, 
a. m., on Thursday, July the 27th, 1848. 

"Let us now examine the provi.-ion touching slavery 
embodied in the proposed adjustment, which some of those 
same gentlemen now oppo.-e with bitter vehemence. It 
reads as follows, applying to Utah and New Mexico : 

" '^ndheU further enacted, That the legislative power 
' of the territory shall extend to all rigiitl'ul sul>jects of legis- 
' lation consistant with theConstitinionof the United States 
' and the provisions of this act ; but no law shall be passed 
' interfering with the primary disposal of the .-oil, iior inre- 
' spect to jifricun slavery; no tax shall be imposed upon the 
' prop rty of the United States; nor shall the lands or other 
' properly of non-residenL= be taxed higher than the lands or 
' other property of residents. All the laws pas>ed by the 
' legislative .issemhly and governor shall he submitted to the 
' C'ongress of the United Slates, and, if disapproved, shall be 
' null and of no effect.' 

" Now, we ask our readers to compare this provision with 
th.it we have quoted from the Clayton compromise of 1848, 
and tell us the difference between them, so far as the ques- 
tion of slavery is concerned. We have compared them 
carefully, for the purpose of deteeting any diacrepaney ; and 
after mature deliberation, we can see nothing, except that 
the Clayton compromise forbids the pa.ssage of any law 'rc- 
spcctino slavery,' while the proposed adjustment forbids the 
passage of ariy law 'in retpect to African slavery.' We 
must confess it requires better eyes, or wor.^e than ours, to 
see any real difference between the two provisions." 

I propose to show that this allegation is palpa- 
bly untrue. In fact, so far as the reason of my 
opposition is concerned, I assert it to be positively 
untrue. Although 1 am in favor of the amend- 
ment proposed by the honorable Senator from 
Mississippi, yet if that amendment should fail, 
and other important amendments be made, I will 
give my vote for the bill, however important I re- 
gard the amendment of the Senator from Missis- 
sipni. 

The editor of the Union places himself before 
the country as a sort of high-priest of the Demo- 
cratic parly, and proposes to read out of it certain 
members of that party because they choose not to 
obey his dictation and commands; because they 
choose to think and act for theinselves; because 
they choose to represent their cotistituents and not 
represent Mr. Ritchie. In that article ho has print- 
ed the vote on what in called the Clayton compro- 
mi.se bill, which pas.'ed this bo'Jy two years ago, 
and very correctly places my vote in favor of its 
passage. And he then propounds the interroga- 
tory, " what is there in this bill in relation to the 
great question of slavery ihnt was not m the bill 
for which these gentlemen voted two years ago?" 
He th«n goes on, and aitemptB to show that the 



two bills are precisely the same, and that theie is 
in fact but the difference of one word, according 
to his account. He professes to give an account 
from the record, which I shall show before [ have 
done to be palpably untrue. What are the differ- 
encea, then, in point of fact between this bill and 
the one for which i voted, the " Clayton compro- 
mise bill," two years ago.' Why, sir, that was 
exclusively a territorial" bill. This is a territo- 
rial bill and a Stale bill — a Ijill to admit a State as 
well as to provide governments for the territories. 
The former was nothing more nor less than a 
territorial bill; and its only provision was to create 
territorial governments for the territories of Oregon, 
California and New Mexico. That bill was found- 
ed, in my judgment, upon the non-interference 
doctrine fully and completely, and prevented the 
territorial government from legislating upon the 
subject of excluding slavery from ih6 territories, 
leaving the rights of the southern people depend- 
ant upon the constitutional laws of the United 
Stales, upon which we were then and are now per- 
fectly willing to risk our rights. If we have no 
constitutional rights, there is no use in saying iiny- 
thing about the matter, as I luive no hopes of any 
justice at the hands of the North. But if we have 
cojistitutional rights, we desire that they should 
be protected and given to u.s. The Clayton com- 
promise bill did this. It stood upon the non-inter- 
vention doctrine. It provided a speedy remedy 
for the adjustment of the que.?tion whethfr slavery 
should or should not exist in the territories. That 
bill left the matter to the Supreme Court, and thus 
every r'ght given by the Constitution was com- 
pletely secured to the Sjuth. 

How is it in^ relation to the bill now before us.' 
For I propose to respond very briefly to the inter- 
rogatory put by the would be liigh-priest of the 
Democratic party. How does this Lull stand .' 
Why, sir, thei-e is a, provision for the admis.sion of 
a State into the Union, and that Stale, too, con- 
tainii? the identical territory to which the Clay- 
ton bill gave a territorial government, and embra- 
cing all the territory which I regard to be of much 
consequence or importance, with a provision pro- 
hiliiting slavery within the limits of that Slate. But 
if that were all, the bill would not be so very objec- 
tionable. But, further, what is the measure uUo 
the support of which Mr. Ritche tries to whip the 
Democratic party in this body? Thi.'^ Iiill includes 
territory enough within the limits of the proposed 
State of California to constitute at the lowest cal- 
culation three States, one or t^^"o of them south of 
the Missouri compromise line, 36° 30'. And this, 
too, when it is proposed that this State of Califor- 
nia, with this immense boundary, shall beadmitte'd, 
not for the purpose of its remaining one State, for 
no man coiuemplates any such thing. None be- 
lieve that California is to remain for all time to 
come one Siale, with such immense limits. The 
friends of the bill conteniplate no such thing. The 
chairman of the commiitte that reported this bill« 
has proclaimed to the S^'nate and to the country, 
that at a subsequent periud, whenever it may be 
deemed necessary, other Stales may lie admitted 
from the State of California. In the mean time the 
constitution of that State is to answer the important 
purpose of the Wilmot proviso to the surplus.ter- 
ritory within that State. • That constitution is to 
prohibit slavery, and make it perfectly certain that 
whatever States may be formed out of California, 



they will come into the Union as free States; for 
it is provided by the Constitution of the United 
States that no State shall be divided into two or 
more States without the assent of said Slate. It 
would then require the assent of both States — thf>». 
is, of the people forming the new State to be au- 
mitted from California as well as of the people of 
the State of California. The State of California 
would never give her consent to forming a slave 
State out of her territory, after she herself had 
been admitted as a free State. I take it, then, that 
so far as the admission of California is concerned, 
with her present boundaries, it is nothing less than 
the Wilmot proviso in its most effective, and there- 
fore most odious and offensive form. Offensive, 
because, being in the form of a State, we cannot 
test its constitutionality, as we could and would do 
if applied to a territorial government, and yet the 
effect, if not the exclusive object, is to exclude 
slavery from territory hereafter to be admitted as 
a Siate or States. There is, then, some difference 
between the Clayton compromise bill, and that 
now before us, called by Mr. Ritche " the adjust- 
ment." 

The Clayton compromise bill left Texas the ©n 
joyment of her rightful boundaries. It only pro- 
posed to provide jjovernments for the territories of 
Oiesron, California, and New Mexico. 

The Clayton compromise bill did not propose to 
purchase from Texas some ten degrees of territo- 
ry, and enough of it south of 36° 30' to form at 
least two additional States, which, if permitted to 
remain in the State of Texas, would remain slave 
territory, and which, if admittad into the Union 
from the State of Texas, will inevitably be admit- 
ted as slave Slates. But if we take them from 
under ihe constitution of Texas, and put them into 
a territory subject to the Wilmot proviso, we 
would enlarge the subject of contention, and they 
will be finally admitte'd as free Slates. Here is a 
propo.sition, then, which did not exist in the Clay- 
ton compromi.?e bill, of taking from under a slave 
con.stituiion ten degrees of territory, and convert- 
ing it into fiee soil. There was no such proposi- 
tion as that in the Clayton compromise bill. And 
what further is there in this bill.' True, the 
amount of money to be paid for converting this 
slave territory into free territory is left blank — ten 
or fifteen millions will, perhaps, be proposed. It 
is, then, proposed to make the people of the South 
pay ten or fifteen millions — and pay it for what 
purpose.' for what benefit? In order that this im- 
mense teriitory shall be taken from th.em and con- 
verted into free territory. Mr. Ritchie can see 
nothing in all this, he cannot, for his life, perceive 
any difference between this bill and the Clayton 
com|iromise bill. 

Mr. Ritchie publishes an extract from the Clay- 
ton o mi promise bill, and then from the bdl now 
under consideration. The extract which he pub- 
lishes from the Clayton compromise bill, reads as 
follows: 

" No Irtw shall be passed respectini tlie estahlislimpnt of 
relisiin, or rt;sp«cting slavi-ry, "r iiuerfering wiUi thi- prima- 
ry du-^pooHl or the public lands." 

He sayqihat the only difference between the two 
bills is themseriion of the word '< African" before 
the word ".'jlavery" in the bill now under consid- 
eration. He then goes on to show that this is the 
only difference between the two propositions. 
Mr. President, I propo.se to show that there are 



A 



palpable errors — to call them by no worse name — 
Tn this bill. The only difference that Mr. Ritchie 
can perceive between the two bills is that in one 
bill the territorial le-jisbture was prohibiteii from 
Wislaling "on thr subject nf slavery," «nd in the 
onier "on the subject of African slavery." On 
looking at the Clayton compromise bill, n true 
copy of which I have procured from the Secretary, 
I find that the provision is in these words: 

" But no law.^liall !>.• pass»-d res-pecliiigtlie proliibiiion or 
e-;tal)li3liii)"iil of j?,Vitnii .■slavery." 

The Clayton compromise bill was reported in 
language identical to that of the bill now under 
consideration. The Senate, includingmyself among 
others, was dissatisfied with this identical lan- 
guage, which Mr. Ritchie has fallen so deeply in 
love with. A majority of the Senate, being dis- 
satisfied witii the language of that bill as reported, 
struck it out, and inserted what I have just read 
to the Senate. Mr. Ritchie did not then under- 
take to denounce the whole Senate for thus amend- 
ing the bill. He did not then perceive tliat the 
Senate had done wrong. He did not then com- 
plain of the aciion of the Senate; but now, air, he 
ooniplnine most lustily, and he gives us what he 
calls a true record, when it turns out that he has 
not examined the record, or, if he has examined 
it, that he has given a false or untrue account of it. 

Mr. Ritchie, at his own pleasure, assigns rea- 
sons for the conduct of gentlemen who have acted 
with me in opposition to this bill. 1 would repeat 
that, so far as 1 am individually concerned, the 
rea.sons assigned by him are untrue, and have not 
the semblance of truth to sustain them. I consider 
the amendment of the Senator from Mississippi o.s 
a great improvement of the bill; but my vote shall 
not dfpend upon the adoption of that amendment, 
because if it be rejected and other important 
amendments be made, I shall vote for the bill. 

But, sir, Mr. Ritchie proceeds in his article and 
aays: 

" This is hi'tor}-, for it is derived from tlio public rpcords; 
and yet, strange lo say, some of tlie ePhtli'nit.n who, lei'.'i 
than two ytars ago, sustained ttie Clayton c<in)proniisR,aiid 
denounced hcfofp their southern constituencies those who 
defeated that coin|)ro.iii>e, are now movins heaven and 
earth to defeat an ailjustinent, siruij, «9 their principal 
reawn,a lauseideutic>^l v-ilh the simitar clttuse of the Clai/on 
compromise. Tukiitn alt these tliinss iitto comi'lerntion. whet 
are we to Ihinkl The friends of lliu proposed adjustment 
have expressly told its enemies from the South, that tliey 
vviTi; willing to strike out the f ature touchina; slavery, 
which some gentlemen fiom the South (who luil voted for 
thr- same feature in the Clayton contpromise) ohj(,'ote<l to, 
and Ihat they were williu'; to remove tln-ir new-found ohr 
jections, by admiltini; Mr. Pn.vTr's amendment. Hut even 
that has not proved satislhctnry. It is all n mysleri/ — nil n 
mystery — uhicK arra^/s lOuHtcrn Slafe-rlghts men in the Senate 
side hy 'siAe leitk Meisrs. Hali\ Chase, ami Sewiird, under the 
lead of Colonel Henton, and arrays soniln rn Srale-rishls 
men in the House of Reprnsentaiives hy the side of Root, 
Wentworth, Wihnot, and Ilnrace Mann, under the lead of 
Joshua R. Gidding.*." 

Sir, it is not true, either, that we are attempting 
to move heaven and earth. We are'not so vain, 
or so wicked as to attempt either. How Mr. 
Ritchie should ascertain that I was opposed to the 
bill, is a matter wholly unknown to me. Certainly 
I made no speech here against it; certairily 1 have 
Dot heretofore expressed my oppositMj^ to it, in 
the course of this debate. 1 have never before 
opened my mouth in relation to the suSject, ex- 
cept in relation to the report of the Committee of 
Thirteen, which constitutes no part of the bill. 
Yet Mr. Kitchie assumes fjn assign for my oppo- 



sition a reason which I repudiated, and which 
I shall show to be untrue. The article then 
proceeds to say, " taking all these things into con- 
sideration, what are we to think? I think it is a 
pretty hard question to answer, what we are to 
think, when wc look to the gross misrepresenta- 
tions and false record presented to the country, of 
the reasons assumed by him for others, which 
reasons are not true. I think, sir, we might well 
exclaim, in his own language, " that in view of all 
these things, what are wc to think.'" [Laughter.] 
He then goes on to say: 

" It is all a mvstery— all a mystery— which arrays pouth- 
rrn Slale-rights'men'iii the Seriate side hy side with Me.-srs. 
HjIi!, Chase, and f^eward, under the lead of Col. Bciiion." 

Well, Mr. President, I should regard it as a very 
sre.at mystery if I were to be thus arrayed. Mr. 
Ritchie seems to have forgotten that "those who 
live in glass houses ought not to throw stones." 
Where"' does he stand ? Where is he now to be 
found ? Where is he who arraigns me and others 
for the company in which we find ourselves? 
Why, sir, he is not side by side with the distin- 
guished Senator from Kentucky, [Mr. Clay,] and 
the distinguished Senator from Maspachusetis, 
[Mr. Wt;BSTER,] for they would not let him stdnd 
there, but he is attempting to hang on to their coat- 
tails. [Laughter.] He has forgotten his old po- 
sition. He has left his old friends. He, too, is 
found in strange company, and advocating and 
supporting strange doctrines. Before, therefore, 
he undertakes to reprimand others, he had better 
look a little at hoire, and see how he stands in re- 
lation to his own course. But, sir, if 1 am to be 
found at all v.'ith the compiny here memioncd, it 
will be only in a single and solitary vote; and, 
after tjiat vote shall have been given, we shall 
stand as wide apart as the poles. How long is it 
since Mr. Ritchie was rallying and fighting under 
the banner of the Senator from Mis.souri, [Mr. 
Be>jto»j.'] How long since he abandoned hia 
company .' How long since he commenced de- 
nouncing him ? How long has it been discovered 
to be unpardonable to be found m company with 
the Senator from Mis.souri, [Mr. Benton ;■] Very 
recently, I take it; for I have heard that Mr. Ritchie 
would not publish, until very recently, extracts 
from panersin Missouri disapproving of the course 
of the Senator from Mis.soari. JNothing of the 
kind could ever find its way into Mr. Ritchie's 
paper until veiy recently, when he found it was 
expedient to denounce that Senator; and, since 
that time, he has even denouncf d others if they 
gave a solitary vote with him. Does he not know 
that Mr. Benton approves every word in this bill, 
and would support every provision of the bill if 
presented as separate mea.sures, and that he only 
objects because t{iey are blended in one bill.' So 
that, in substance and measures, Mr. Ritchie is 
actins; with Col. Benton, whdo I, for the sake of 
principle, am fighting them both. He denounces 
me for voting with Col. Benton. 

In relation to those other gentlemen enuinerated 
here with whom it is alledged Island side by side, 
I deny it; I repudiate them. I have one declaration 
to make to Mr. Ritchie and to the country, and I 
hope that my constituents will read it and ponder 
over it, and if it isunworthy of their representative 
they will repudiate me. I stand here to advocate 
and defend their rights, and in the cxaniination of 
great measures and great principles, I am not to be 



o 



induwd to vote in a particular way because that ' 
would bring me in company with particular gen- I 
tlcrnen I am not one of those who would vote 
against a bill because certain other gentlemen chose 
to vote for if. 1 would rather act with Satan himself, i 
and be right, than act with the best man that ever I 
lived and be wrong. 1 shall examine all meaaurea ' 
submitted for my action in this body on their own 
merits, and I shall cast my vote according to my 
judgment of the merits of every measure, without [ 
looking to see who votes for it or who votes 
against it. Mr. Ritchie may not be able to appre- j 
ciate this, or he may think the people of the coun- ! 
try 80 remarkably stupid and ignorant that they j 
can be rallied for or against a measuse on account 
of the men who vote for or against it. Sir, he is 
mistaken. He underrates the intelligerce of the 
people, who look at these measures for themselves. 

The people will form their opinions for them- 1 
selves; and no matter who votes for or against, 
they will never fail to use every effort to prevent ' 
the passage of an obnoxious or unjust law, or to i 
secure the passage of a beneficial and just one. 

Mr. President, I have now answered the main I 
points in the charge of Mr. Ritchie against me and | 
others, and have answered them truly, at all 
events. 1 am willing to go before the country i 
with my response. I would say here that this is j 
the only mode by which anything favoring the 
position which ! and those who act with me oc- | 
cupy can go to the country. In other words, the 1 
only mode by which anything in opposition to : 
this measure can reach the peofile is by a speech j 
delivered on this floor. Every press, excepting 
the Repui)lic — and that, I believe, stands neutral 
on this question — every press, or the two promi- 
nent presses, are out in favor of this measure. 
All three were in favor of it at one time. This 
paper of Mr. Ritchie particularly has become very 
warm and zealous for it, and has even denounced 
southern Democrats who find fault with it, and 
undertakes to read them out of the party, because 
they will not blindly support a measure which their 
judgments condemn. How stands this matter.' 
What is the relative strength of the bill with the 
southern Democracy of this body.-' According to 
my estimate there can be found but five southern 
Democrats in favor of it. There are certainly 
eleven opposed to it. And while there are eleven 
against and five for the position of Mr. Ritchie, he 
undertakes to denounce the eleven, and read them 
out of the party. 

Mr. FOUTE. "Will the honorable Senator al- 
low me for a moment? 

Mr. TURNEY. Certainly. 

Mr. FOOTE. If I understand their position, 
not one of the honorable Senators from the South, 
to whom allusion has been made, has declared 
himself to be entirely opposed to this measure. 
They were all very particular in declaring that if 
certain amendments were made they would favor 
the measure. 1 now beg leave to say to the hon- 
orable Senator that, so far as I am concerned, 1 am 
in favor of amendments, and have been from the 
beginning of this controversy down to the present 
moment. If reasonable amendments be made, I 
hope there will not be the least difference between 
the different Democratic Senators from the South 
on iliis measure. If the honorable Senator from 
Loui.siana [.Vlr. Soule] was correctly understood 
the other day, he was very far from being opposed 



to this measure ^0/0 caio, but declared himself tc 
be in favor of it if certain amendments were irjade, 
I do not believe that there is one man on this side 
of the house who will not support this measure it: 
the event of sucli amendments being made as wili 
render it acceptfllile to ail. 

Mr. TURNEY. Mr. President, I really do' 
not see the point of the explanation, neither can f 
conceive why it was necessary to interrupt me in 
order to make the explanation. I was speaking 
of Mr. Ritchie's article against me and others. 

Mr. FOOTE. Did you not speak of Senators 
froin the South .' 

Mr. TURNEY. I spoke of Senators from the 
South with a view only to show the number for 
and against the bill, and I repeated at ieat^t half & 
dozen times that I would be satisfied %vith the bils 
if certain amendments be made. I have gone 
further. I have gone on to show that, even if 
this amendment of the Senator from Mis.sissippi 
[.Mr. Davis] be rejected, yet if other important 
amendmenis be made I shall vote for the bill. I 
want to know who are the friends of the bill and 
who are not. When we speak of a bill, wc, speak 
not of a bill as it may be amended, but as it is on 
the table. I would say that tliere is not a man in 
America who would oppose this bill if it should 
be so amended as to suit his conveniences and 
views; riot one. When I speak of this bill, 1 
speak of it as it is, not of it as it may be amended 
or changed, for then it may become an entire new- 
bill. 

Mr. FOOTE. I am sorry to be under the 
necessity of interrupting the honorable gentieman 
again. Does the honorable Senator from Ten- 
nessee wish to be understood as declaring that, in 
his opinion, any friend of this bill has opposed 
reasonable amendments .' Does he not know, does 
not the country know, that the honorable chair- 
man of the committee of thirteen, in the beginnings 
and ever since, has offered no opposition to rea- 
sonable amendments.' Has not the honorable 
Senator from Michigan [Mr. Cass] pursued the 
same course.' Have we not all done so? Have. 
not those of us who are in favor of the measure 
expected and desired that modifications would be 
made? Several, iiicluding myself, have declared 
their determination, at a seasonable time, to offer 
amendments. I understand, then, from the in- 
dications around me, that there will be no opposi- 
tion to the bill, of an inflexible character, if it be 
properly amended. 

Mr. TURNEY. I do not know exactly what 
the Senator means by inflexible opposition. I 
really do not know how to discuss the merits of a 
bill not before us. 1 will not discuss the merits of 
the bill as it may be after it shall have been 
amended, but as it is now. How are we to dis- 
cuss what the bill will be after it shall have beeii 
amended, when we do not know how it will be 
amended? 1 was not speaking of the conduct of 
Senators at all. I was speaking of the course of 
this high-priest, or rather of this man who would 
be high-prie.<?tof the Democratic party. He rseems 
to speak, or assumes to speak, by authority; and 
that authority is that no amendment will be made. 
He has denounced us because we want amend- 
ments to this bill. We are denounced because wt 
will not vote for this bill unle.-ss it be amended, not 
because we are not in favor of passing some bill. 
We are denounced because we do not take this 



oill as it is, as itcomesfrom the hands of the com- 
Tiittee. Trijt is what we are denounceJ for. It 
was to that point, and to that pi)int alone, that I 
was calling the ailention of the Senate and of the 
country. 1 am anxiou? to vote for the settlement 
ind adjustment of the whole qiiestion, "and am 
mxioiifl to vote for this bill, if it be amended so as 
:o m ike it acceptable to me. 1 have written letters 
home to this etTect. I have gone so fiir a.s to ex- 
press th6 hope that amendments would be made 
which would enable me, and all other true men of 
•.he South, to give ihi.s l)ill our hearty support. I 
Tave expressed this hope in letters to rtiy con- 
.^tituents. I did not charge any one here with a 
Jesire to defeat ;iinendr»ients. I am willing to be- 

ieve, and hope, that a majority will be found in 
■avor of placing the bill in a shape to make it ac- 
-eptable to liic tjouihern people; but whether the 
friends of the bill will permit it to be so amended, 
'.ime alone will gbow. \Vh:it, let m; ask, is the 
a:reat bone of contention ? What do the southern 
neople desire? — I mean those of them that act with 
Tie, and entertain my opinions, is there any man 

n the S >iuh, to be found anywhere, call liim a 
Calhouiii.st, call him a di.sunionist, or any other 

ippmbrinuo form, it' you <'h.>oKo 1 cliHllengc Mr 

Ritchie, and others who tttke hi.s position, to point 
ne to a solitary man who acts with me, who de- 
nanils for the South any more than the Constiiu- 
lon guaranties. Is there any man that ilemands 
"or the South more than equality with the people 
)f the North .' Has any southern man proposed 
o exclude the northern people from migrating to 
he ttrriiories? Has any such idea as that been 
:'lvanced or advocated by the southern people.' 
N'o, sir; far from it. All they ask, and all they 
over have asked, i.s their con.-^titutional rights; that 
hey shall be permiited to enter the territtiries with 
iuir property, upon an equal fooling and with 
?qual rights with their brethren of the free States. 
This is all they ask. They ask no more than 
hat. And anybody who supposes that the Siuth 
villsul-imit toanythiniles3,irreatly under-esiimates 
lie peo-.le of the SoUth. They chiim to be free- 
nen, and they claim that the Constitution was as 
nuch nude for them as for the peojde of the North. 
But Mr. Ritchie says that the integrity and na- 
lonality of the Democratic party rnu.-t be pre- 
served, and it can only be preserved by a total 
sacrifice of all ihpse rights of the southern people. ' 
And because I, for one, will not agree to this .sacri- 
ice, does he hold me up and denounce me. \ 

Nov,', I ask what Senators mean when they talk i 
;o you of extreme South and of extreme southern ' 
! men.' Will gentlenien point me to any iinrea.«on- 
h able demnnd made by eouthern men? The Con- 
^ . alituiion of the coumry makes them equal to the 
North, and they would be degraded and disgraced, 



|| were they to consent to be anythin» less. I hnpe 

i they will never consfot to surrender any portion 
j; of their constitutional rights. 

Mr. Ritchie has taken occasion, also, to de- 
' nounce the Missouri compromise line. He de- 
1 nounces it, and denounces all those who advocate 
i' it. Why, sir, Mr. Ritchie has gone for north of 
,; 36° 3U' himself. Reduce C tlifomia to the line of 
36° 30'; run the line through Texas; compensate 
Texas for whatever you may purcha.se of her ter- 
' ritory, and then organize territorial governments 
founded upon the non-intervention docinne, and I 
V will vote for the bill. Will we gain nothing by 
I' that? We know thut we will gain at least two 
jl southern States in Texas. There will be no dis- 
!| pute in relation to that. If that ptrt of the terri- 
i| tory of Texas remain under a slave cons'.itution, 
' be kept under it, it will come into the Union as a 
slave State. We frnoic that,and we know further, 
,' from the signs of the times, that if this part of the 
jl territory of Texas !)e idken from her, and put 
under the territorial form of government, it is des- 
1' lined to come into the Union as a free Stare. There 
lis the povtr to accomplish it. If the southern 
'. boundary of California be reduced to the hue of 
: 3l)° 30', territory enough will be left south <>f that 
j line 10 form one Slate at least, with an equal chance 
j: of making it a slave State, which is all that the 
I South can ask or I'emand. There is not a south- 
,1 ern man who would demand to the letter the con- 
I stitutional rightsof the South. I defy Mr. Ritchie, 
ij 1 defy any ono else, to designate a soli'ary man in 
jl the South who demands his full share of constitu- 
j lional right. If the South were to demand that, 
• they would not only demand that the Wilmot pro- 
I viso should not be spread over the territories, hut 
J they would require ttiat ai.y obstruction, any diffi- 
' cullies, growing out of any doubt in relation to the 
laws of Mexico, ought to tie removed at once, and 
ih.tt the right to cjirry slaves into the territories 
should be recognized by this Government. They 
would do thi-:, if they demanded all their consti- 
tutional rights as equal citizens of thi.^s Union. I 
] undertake to say, tlieref.ire, that Mr. Ritchie has 
no right to read tv/o-tliinis of the Dem-'i-ratic party 
of the South out of that party for dllK-rmg with 
' him. and fi>r maintaining the rights of the South. 
1 believe that the Democratic party are governed 
i)y democratic republican doctrines. We might 
have a right to turn Mr. Ritchie out, but he has 
none to expel us. I shall, therefore, still regard 
myself as belonging to the Democratic party, and 
shall continue to act with it, regardle.ss of Mr. 
Ritchie. I will conclude, by sMying, that I hope 
.■iiid trust the time is not far disuuit when there 
Hi 1 be a press in the city of Washington that will 
do some little justire to the people of ihe South 
and will appeal to tie country in their Lehaif. ' 



